Looking into the future the Pelican feeding its young from a self-induced wound in its own breast (as depicted, mysteriously, on the state flag of Louisiana) is accepted as an appropriate symbol of both self-sacrifice and rebirth. Through his selfless efforts, man is raised from the slavery of ignorance to the condition of freedom conferred by wisdom. Given the current state of affairs in Louisiana, one hopes that the understanding of the Pelican as a symbol shall point the way towards a new consciousness of ourselves as a whole, and lead us to face our futures with strength, grace, wisdom and faith, to learn from our mistakes and carry our successes and zest for living to future generations.

---

Response to the L.A. Times Article, "A Barrier That Could Have Been"

On Sept.9, 2005 the Los Angeles Times ran a story quoting Joe Towers, former general counsel of the United States Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans Division, that the Corps' Hurricane Barrier Project (HBP) would have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, if only United States District Court Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. had not issued an injunction against it. Save Our Wetlands Inc. (SOWL) was one of the plaintiffs. "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," said Joe Towers.

Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Times violated basic journalistic ethics by running this story without contacting SOWL. This would have been simply done by contacting SOWL's website thru email. However, the L.A. Times did take the liberty to misquote and take info off SOWL's website out of context. This is not only an injustice to SOWL and to St. Tammany Parish the plaintiffs, but also to the federal judiciary and to Judge Charles Schwartz, who ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Here are the lists of misleading info:

The article states truthfully that St. Tammany Parish was opposed to the project. However, the L.A. Times gives the impression their opposition was only because they wanted to build a shipyard on a bayou. "The project faced strong opposition from the environmental group Save Our Wetlands, fishermen and the St. Tammany Parish, just north of Lake Pontchartrain, which had hoped to see a large shipyard built on a bayou. The shipyard was never built..." Yes, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury was a co-plaintiff. Their concerns and interests were many. One, of course: this project was going to destroy Lake Pontchartrain, making it a stagnant lake by cutting off the velocity and salinity flow. However, their biggest concern was that this dam-barrier was going to trap St. Tammany Parish into a soup bowl if a category 4 or 5 hurricane hit. This is clearly stated in SOWL's website. "This barrier/dam was the major controversy. The citizens and politicians of St. Tammany Parish in Slidell opposed the Hurricane Barrier Project. They viewed it as an environmental threat to Lake Pontchartrain and as a flood threat to Slidell and St. Tammany Parish. They feared that water would top the dam/barrier and then would not be able to escape, thus causing devastating flooding in St. Tammany Parish. Ed Scogin, the State Representative of Slidell, Louisiana, was the most vocal opponent of the proposed Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier Project."

Therefore, St. Tammany Parish was fearful and prophetic that the Corps was going to trap and kill them in a flood bowl, just as the Corps trapped and killed the people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The waters would have topped the barriers. The waters then become trapped inside the barriers, not being able to flush rapidly back into the Gulf of Mexico, making it impossible for not only St. Tammany to drain, but also New Orleans and the surrounding areas. This is an extremely important point. Why? Because this is exactly what Hurricane Katrina would have done. It would have topped these barriers. In addition, New Orleans AND St. Tammany Parish would have been trapped inside an even bigger Super Soup Bowl. "Al Naomi, a senior project manager for the Corps, said the levees and control structures in the post 1965 plan were not big enough to control a surge and protect the city.

Even Joe Towers conceded the Corps' Barrier plan was inadequate by today's standards.

Therefore, you cannot help but ask Joe Towers...When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, how could you say the barriers would have been "INADEQUATE", but in same breath say the barriers would have "saved New Orleans"? Maybe he hates Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. Perhaps he dislikes the people of St. Tammany Parish? Or, does he just take issue against SOWL? His comments have certainly been successful in stirring up a hornet's nest of hatred and genocide against Save Our Wetlands, Inc.

SOWL and Joe Towers have had some dealings in the past. In 1974, SOWL filed suit in U.S. District Court in New Orleans concerning the illegal destruction of 5,200 acres of wetlands for a housing development in a flood plain.

See: Lawsuit- Save Our Wetlands vs. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1974

Among other things, it requested that a Special Grand Jury be convened against the Corps' criminal activities of permitting illegal diking, damming and draining of navigable bodies of water in violation of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act. These illegal and criminal acts resulted in promoting housing developments in low-lying areas which are extremely susceptible to hurricane tidal surges, namely the Eden Isle Subdivision on the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Slidell, La. The 5,200 acres in question eventually evolved into the Eden Isle, Oak Harbor and Lake Shore Subdivisions, which were obliterated by Hurricane Katrina.

Also, in 1975, after consultation with Chief U.S. District Court Judge Herbert Christenberry, a special appointment was set up with the New Orleans FBI. The meeting was held inside the New Orleans FBI office with SOWL and represenatives of the Audubon Society to discuss complaints and grievances. One of the major complaints was specifically against Joe Towers and his roll as chief Corps counsel, permitting his employer to promote housing developments in surge-susceptible low-lying areas.

Misleading and inaccurate information given by Joe Towers was reported in a September 9, 2005 L.A. Times article. "My feeling was that saving human lives was more important than saving a percentage of shrimp and crab in Lake Pontchartrain," Towers said. "I told my staff at the time that this judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a little dramatic." Joe Towers is an attorney. He makes the accusation that Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. condemned the city for some crabs and shrimp. It should be noted that U.S. District Judge Schwartz's injunction did not permanently enjoin the barriers. It told the Corps to go back and do another EIS that was not full of lies, fraud, and misconceptions. Judge Schwartz's judgement specifically states that in no way does his judgment "PRECLUDE" the building of the barriers.

So you can’t help but ask: What happened? Why didn't the Corps just go back and do a proper study? Then they could have had their barriers and all those hundreds of millions of dollars of dredging contracts, etc. Probably because they decided to give up the scheme to drain wetlands for housing developments using taxpayer money under the guise of creating a hurricane protection barrier. Let us go back to Judge Schwartz's judgment.

1. "The testimony reveals serious questions as to the adequacy of cost-benefit analysis of the plan. Certain economic benefits were assigned to the plan resulting from the conclusion that the construction of levees in certain marsh areas would allow urbanization in those areas. However, many of these areas have been designated as wetlands subject to considerable limitation as to use. This considerable decrease in the possibility of urbanization is not reflected in the economic benefits assigned to the plan. A Corps economist requested that the matter be restudied; however, such restudy has never come about".

SOWL's website makes some interesting observations: In conjunction with the barrier/dam proposed as hurricane protection, the Corps planned to drain the wetlands of New Orleans East. The Corps tied the draining and subsequent development of the wetlands of New Orleans East into its list of economic benefits because of the Hurricane Barrier Project. They actually put this economic benefit analysis in their Environmental Impact Study under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Another plan of the Corps' Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project was the proposal to drain ~10,000 acres of wetlands in St. Charles Parish, near the New Orleans International Airport, and build levees to promote housing development in this flood-prone area. The most immediate result of SOWL’s litigation regarding this matter was that the Corps withdrew its proposal to drain these ~10,000 acres.

The Corps' economic benefit analysis was absurd. How is it an overall economic benefit to build housing developments in an extremely flood-susceptible area? This type of development is extremely costly to taxpayers. Why did the government subsidize the developers of these flood-prone housing developments despite their susceptibility to flood and the valuable wetlands that were being destroyed, which potentially could affect the long-term ecological health of Lake Pontchartrain? Could it be that the wetlands of New Orleans East were owned by a wealthy Texas oil baron conspiring with United States President Lyndon B. Johnson?

LA Times misquotes, misleading, and inaccurate reporting:

The Save Our Wetlands website says that it "has been involved in countless lawsuits, many of them against the Army Corps of Engineers to block public works projects".

SOWL has been involved in countless lawsuits against the Corps for issuing permits to private housing and private commercial corporations to develop in wetlands that are low-lying and extremely susceptible to hurricane tidal surges. Nowhere does SOWL state on their website that they have "been involved in countless lawsuits against the Army Corps of Engineers to block public works," as quoted by the L.A. Times. It's true SOWL has been a pain in the ass for the Army Corps of Engineers: requesting federal judges to convene "Special Grand Juries", going to the FBI requesting Congressional investigations, requesting the Corps be stripped of their wetlands permitting authority, requesting Corps’ generals in Washington investigate themselves, secretly photographing incriminating Corps internal memos that the Corps try to later destroy, proving in a federal court that the Corps lies, hides, misrepresents and has a hidden agenda to drain valuable wetlands to enable massive housing developments for oil barons and wealthy corporate interests in areas extremely susceptible to hurricane tidal surges.

1. THE QUOTE BELOW IS PROBABLY THE MOST ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, UNFOUNDED STATEMENT MADE IN THIS UNAUTHENTICATED, UNSUBSTANTIATED LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2005, WRITTEN ABOUT SAVE OUR WETLANDS WITHOUT CONTACTING SOWL. IT STANDS AS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A BIAS CORPORATE NEWSMEDIA THAT SERVES NOT THE INTEREST OF INFORMING THE GENERAL PUBLIC- BUT SERVING THE PLATFORM OF A CORPORATE GOVERNMENT:

The article states "Since the 1960s, the Corps has become more sensitive to the concerns of environmental objections to its projects." It then contradicts itself by admitting "In part, the changes have been forced by litigation the Corps has faced."

The above LA Times Paragraph is such hogwash. Just read the below SOWL letters, documents and lawsuits.

1. March 26, 1998, Permit Application, of the Tammany Holding Corporation to develop approximately one thousand acres of land on the east side of I-10 across from Eden Isles.
2. June 2, 2004 Lawsuit: SOWL vs. United States Army Corps of Engineers Col. Peter J. Rowan
3. History of the Eden Isles, Oak Harbor & North Shore Estate subdivisions in Slidell Louisiana
4. United States Army Corps of Engineers 'Plays Footsies" with Local Developers
5. Lawsuit- Save Our Wetlands vs. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975